Une guerre menée avec des instruments modernes de destruction est-elle encore justifiable ? La théorie marxiste de l'impérialisme épuise-t-elle le problème de la guerre ? Est-il toujours possible, aujourd'hui, face au risque de conflagration universelle, d'écrire une philosophie de l'histoire ? Que peut le droit contre l'état de nature international ? Ces questions traversent l'œuvre d'un juriste et philosophe italien du XXe siècle, Norberto Bobbio. Elles peuvent toutes être considérées comme les corollaires de son angoisse fondamentale devant le problème de la guerre. La recherche présente se propose d'introduire le lecteur de langue française aux thèses internationalistes de Bobbio ; thèses actuellement disséminées dans plusieurs dizaines d'ouvrages, d'essais, d'articles et de cours, dont la plupart n'ont pas encore été traduits. L'éparpillement de ses écrits, néanmoins, n'oblitère pas la possibilité d'un exposé systématique sa pensée, forgée au creuset de la philosophie politique, de l'histoire des idées, de la science politique et de la philosophie du droit. Bobbio est, en effet, l'auteur d'une politique analytique qui s'est donnée pour tâche d'éclaircir les problèmes contemporains à la lumière de concepts tirés aussi bien de la philosophie anglo-saxonne que continentale. Il s'est inscrit dans une tradition qui, à la suite de Kant, Bentham et Saint-Simon, s'est inlassablement employée à penser les conditions du dépassement de l'anarchie internationale. Ainsi, du dialogue ininterrompu avec l'héritage de la pensée politique et juridique, Bobbio a tiré des armes conceptuelles afin de lutter contre les logiques de puissance propres au système international, contre la persistance des justifications traditionnelles de la guerre, et pour le projet fédéraliste de la démocratie mondiale. / Is a war waged with modern instruments of destruction still justifiable ? Does the Marxist theory of imperialism exhaust the issue of war? Is it still possible today, in view of the risk of a universal conflagration, to propose a philosophy of history? What can international law do against the state of nature between nations? These questions pervade the works of 20th century Italian jurist and philosopher, Norberto Bobbio. They can all be considered as corollaries of his fundamental angst in dealing with the problem of war. This research proposes to introduce the French reader to Bobbio’s internationalist theories; theories currently disseminated in scores of books, essays, articles and lectures, most of which have not yet been translated. Nevertheless, the dispersion of his writings does not rule out the possibility of a systematic presentation of his thinking, forged by the amalgamation of political philosophy, the history of ideas, political science and the philosophy of the law. Indeed, Bobbio is the author of an analytical policy which sought to clarify contemporary issues in light of concepts taken from both Anglo-Saxon and Continental philosophies. He is part of a tradition which, in the wake of Kant, Bentham and Saint-Simon, has indefatigably endeavored to think of the requirements for surpassing international anarchy. Thus, from the ongoing dialogue between the legacy of political and juridical thought, Bobbio has forged conceptual weapons to fight against the international system’s specific logic of power, against the persistence of the traditional justifications of war, and for the federalist plan of global democracy.

The Method and its Disappearance: Analysis between philosophies of social contract and classical sociologies. A Study in Epistemology Jan Maršálek Université de Franche-Comté/Charles University in Prague Supervisors: prof. Frédéric Brahami, prof. Miloslav Petrusek (†), dr. Jan Balon. Résumé: In a doubly disloyal continuity with regard to the French epistemological tradition, largely preoccupied with the formation of scientific concepts, the present work addresses the phenomenon of disappearance of 'analytical' method. Nevertheless, the present work does not constitute an historical investigation: its very goal is to show (within the works of T. Hobbes, J.-J. Rousseau, H. Spencer and E. Durkheim) the variation of the epistemological status of the analysis, and thus to set up the concept of an 'epistemological event'. Examining the disappearance of the analysis requires its identification in the theoretical work whereby its leverage remains unacknowledged. Thus, having the status of a method in the philosophies of the social contract of Hobbes and Rousseau, the analysis 'continues' to structure, in a tacit way, the work of Spencer and Durkheim, both of them founders of scientific sociology. Is it possible to claim that, in the 19th century, the analysis manifests itself in the sociology's common recourse to...

Today, some twelve million immigrants are unlawfully present in the United States. What response to this situation does Christian theology suggest for these immigrants and those who receive them? To this question about the status of immigrants before the law, the theological literature lacks an understanding of how federal U.S. immigration law developed, and it lacks a robust theological account of the governance of immigration. To fill this gap, the thesis presents three stages in the formation of the laws that designate some immigrants as aliens unlawfully present or illegal aliens, drawing out the moral argumentation in each phase and responding with moral theology. In the first stage, non-citizens were called aliens in U.S. law. In response to the argument that aliens exist as a consequence of natural law, Christian teaching indicates that immigrants are not alien either in creation or for the church. In the second stage, the authority of the federal government to exclude and expel aliens was established, leaving those who do not comply to be designated illegal aliens. To the claim that the federal government has unlimited sovereignty over immigration, interpretations of the Christian Scriptures respond that divine sovereignty limits and directs civil authority over immigration. In the third stage, legal reforms that were intended to end discrimination between countries allowed millions from countries neighboring the U.S. to become illegal aliens. These reforms turn out to be unjust on philosophical grounds and unneighborly on theological grounds. While federal law classes many as aliens unlawfully present in the United States, Christian political theology indicates that immigrants are not alien, the government of immigration is limited by divine judgment, and nationals of neighboring countries deserve special regard.